Lubrizol Advance Materials India Private Limited UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES vs Union of India — WP/987/2026
Case under Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th March 2026.
CNR: HCBM020063732026
e-Filing Number
19-02-2026
Filing Number
WP/6372/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
WP/987/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI , HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI , HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE
Bench Type
Division
Category
INDIRECT TAXES ( 17 )
Sub-Category
GST Goods and Services Tax ( 100 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
04th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lubrizol Advance Materials India Private Limited UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES
Respondent(s)
Union of India
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Mulund West
Commissioner of State Tax
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI , HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE
FRESH ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-03-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
Orders
Summary The Bombay High Court quashed the GST refund rejection order dated 19th November 2025 passed by the tax authority against Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd., finding that the authority failed to properly consider the petitioner's contentions regarding whether services supplied to overseas group companies constituted "export of services" or intermediary services. The court remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh de novo consideration within three months, keeping all parties' contentions open, as the authority had not adequately examined the service agreements and applicable GST circulars before denying the IGST refund claim of Rs. 56,11,885. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Bombay High Court quashed the GST refund rejection order dated 19th November 2025 passed by the tax authority against Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd., finding that the authority failed to properly consider the petitioner's contentions regarding whether services supplied to overseas group companies constituted "export of services" or intermediary services. The court remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh de novo consideration within three months, keeping all parties' contentions open, as the authority had not adequately examined the service agreements and applicable GST circulars before denying the IGST refund claim of Rs. 56,11,885. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts